Originally posted by tabbyc
View Post
In Walt''s case he is going to have a deed that specifies he owns a certain type of unit. There will be associated documents describing that type of unit and the associated usage privileges.
Based on the information that has been provided thus far, I doubt there is any ambiguity at all as to what Walt legally owns (deluxe ocean view).
*****
The real question, however, is whether Walt was misled at the time he purchased and that the misrepresentations were done to induce a sale. That's where the papers that have "ocean front" written on them become relevant. If other people are reporting the same thing that bolsters the case that misrepresentations were deliberate and undercuts any arguments that this was a rogue salesperson or that Walt's documents might not be authentic.
In fact, if Sunterra was selling something that didn't exist, it likely verges on fraud.
I just don't see where a "reasonable person" test factors into this. Fraud doesn't rely on reasonable person test; in this case it's a simple issue of whether Walt (and others) as individuals relied on the fraudulent misrepresentations. There is no need to ask what a reasonable person would have done in the circumstances; it's only a question of what occurred between Walt and the sales person.
Let's say that Walt and the sales person understood between themselves that "Ocean Front Unit" meant "untouched red 1965 Chevy Impala" and Walt actually found out four years later when the paint bleeds off the car that the car was originally lime-green and had been repainted red. The fact that a reasonable person would never assume that "ocean front unit" means "unretouched red 1965 Chevy Impala" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what was understood between Walt and the sales person.
Comment